The second equation confused me a bit as a math-first, cs-second person; looks like a commutative transform, not an associative one. The trick is one must alrea

The second equation confused me a bit as a math-first, cs-second person; looks like a commutative transform, not an associative one. The trick is one must already trust these ops are commutative. The second equation might be more clearly written as: >>> 1 + (1 + (2. * * 53)) to avoid hiding the associativity behind the assumption of commutativity.